MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979101911 · doi:10.1017/s0022112007007781

The efficiency of a turbine in a tidal channel

2007· article· en· W1979101911 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbineWakeMerge (version control)Channel (broadcasting)Tidal powerMechanicsOpen-channel flowPhysicsMarine engineeringEnvironmental scienceFlow (mathematics)MeteorologyComputer scienceTelecommunicationsEngineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is an upper bound to the amount of power that can be generated by turbines in tidal channels as too many turbines merely block the flow. One condition for achievement of the upper bound is that the turbines are deployed uniformly across the channel, with all the flow through them, but this may interfere with other uses of the channel. An isolated turbine is more effective in a channel than in an unbounded flow, but the current downstream is non-uniform between the wake of the turbines and the free stream. Hence some energy is lost when these streams merge, as may occur in a long channel. We show here, for ideal turbine models, that the fractional power loss increases from 1/3 to 2/3 as the fraction of the channel cross-section spanned by the turbines increases from 0 to close to 1. In another scenario, possibly appropriate for a short channel, the speed of the free stream outside the turbine wake is controlled by separation at the channel exit. In this case, the maximum power obtainable is slightly less than proportional to the fraction of the channel cross-section occupied by turbines.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it